DOM co-occurrence restrictions and their repair strategies
evidence from Romanian and Galician
Abstract
Since the pioneering discussion in Ormazabal & Romero (2007), work on PCC-effects that extend beyond clitic clusters has been the focus of much investigative research (Cornilescu 2020, Sheehan 2020, Irimia in press, a.o.). Many of these effects have been shown to arise with animate nominals, in Romance particularly those bearing differential object marking (DOM). More work, however, is needed on documenting how these types of co-occurrence restrictions can be repaired. In this article, we discuss repair strategies in contexts containing DOM from Romanian and Galician as compared to Spanish; we show that an understanding of these facts revolves around the typology of available [person] licensing positions along the clausal spine. We show that Romanian and Galician exhibit multiple licensing positions within various licensing domains, both within and beyond the vP. We also discuss data from both Peninsular and Argentine Spanish that differ in this regard and demonstrate that they have fewer licensing positions than Romanian and Galician.
References
AAissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435-483. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17(1): 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2005.17.1.1
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Douglas A Kibbee & Dieter Wanner (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143-170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.69.14bos
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage différentiel dans les langues de l’Europe. In Jacques Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 193–259. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Coon, Jessica & Stefan Keine. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4) 655-710. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00386
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2000. On the interpretation of the prepositional accusative in Romanian. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 2:91-106.
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2020. Ditransitive constructions with differentially marked direct objects in Romanian. In A. Pineda & J. Mateu (eds.), Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, 117-142. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Costa, João. 2000. Word order and discourse-configurationality in European Portuguese. In João Costa (ed.), Portuguese syntax: New comparative studies, 94-115. Oxford (New York): Oxford University Press.
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
De Swart, Petrus Jacobus Franciscus. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Ph.D. thesis, LOT.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2021. Interaction, Satisfaction, and the PCC. Linguistic Inquiry (Early Access Corrected Proof), 1-56. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00455
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7, 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Fábregas, Antonio. 2013. Differential object marking in Spanish: State of the art. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics (2)2: 1-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2603
Gallego, Ángel. 2013. Object shift in Romance. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 409-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9188-6
Gravely, Brian. 2020. Only syntactic movement will do: Morphosyntactic variation in Galician and Icelandic. Talk presented at Cambridge Comparative Syntax 9 (CamCos9). University of Newcastle (Newcastle, UK).
Gravely, Brian. 2021a. DOM and non-canonical word order in Romance: The case of Galician. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 22(2): 5-31. http://doi.org/10.31178/BWPL.22.2.1
Gravely, Brian. 2021b. Language acquisition and endogenous grammar change: The rise of Galician complementizer agreement. Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia.
Gravely, Brian. 2021c. ‘X’ marks the spot but not why you think: a reply to Gallego (2020). Ms., Emory University.
Gupton, Timothy. 2014. The syntax-information structure interface: Subjects and clausal word order in Galician. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter/Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512059
Hill, Virginia & Alexandru Mardale 2021. The Diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192898791.001.0001
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. 2020. Types of structural objects: Some remarks on differential object marking in Romanian. In A. Bárány & L. Kalin (eds.), Case, Agreement, and Their Interactions: New Perspectives on Differential Argument Marking, 77-126. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666137-003
Irimia, Monica Alexandrina. in press. DOM and the PCC: How many types? DOM and co-occurrence restrictions. How many types? In C. Cinzia, C. E. Bullock & A. J. Toribio (eds.), A half century of Romance Linguistics. Selected Proceedings of the 50th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 157-182. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5, 241-270. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1993.5.3.241
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choice functions, and differential marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9165.001.0001
Mardale, Alexandru. 2015. Differential object marking in the first original Romanian texts. In V. Hill (ed.), Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian, 200-245. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004292550_007
Onea, Edgar. 2018. DOM and dative arguments in Romanian. Talk presented at
the Datives in Discourse Workshop, University of Cologne (Cologne, Germany).
Onea, Edgar & Daniel Hole. 2017. Differential object marking of human definite direct objects in Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 62(4): 359-376. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34224.25608
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 315-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9010-9
Ormazabal, Javier & Juan Romero. 2013. Differential object marking, case and agreement. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2(2), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.2.2.2808.
Pancheva, Roumyana & María Luisa Zubizarreta. 2018. The Person Case Constraint.
The syntactic encoding of perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(4). 1291-1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9395-7
Pineda, Anna. 2020. Double-Object Constructions in Romance: The Common Denominator. Syntax 23(3): 203-240. http://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12193
Preminger, Omer. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1), 13. http://doi.org/10.5334/gJgl.315
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducting arguments. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001
Raposo, Eduardo & Juan Uriagereka. 2005. Clitic placement in Western Iberian: a Minimalist view. In G. Cinque & R. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 639-697. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person. In M. Richards & A.L. Malchukov (eds.), Scales (Linguistische Arbelts Berichte 86), 137-161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
Rodríguez-Modoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.
Saab, Andrés. 2022. From pronouns to probes. A theory for a subset of Spanish clitics. Ms., CONICET-UBA.
Published
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2022 Brian Gravely, Monica Alexandrina Irimia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
